Encyclopedic information and pragmatic interpretation

References

Allan, Keith. 2012. Pragmatics in the (English) lexicon. In Keith Allan & Kasia M. Jaszczolt (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of pragmatics, 227–250. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139022453.013Search in Google Scholar

Apresjan, Jurij D. 1995. Izbrannye trudy, tom II: Integral’noe opisanie jazyka i sistemnaja leksikografija [Selected works, vol. 2: An integrated description of the language and systemic lexicography]. Moscow: Jazyki russkoj kul’tury.Search in Google Scholar

Apresjan, Jurij D. 2010. Vvedenie [Introduction]. In Jurij D. Apresjan (ed.), Prospekt aktivnogo slovarja russkogo jazyka [A plan of an active dictionary of the Russian language], 17–54. Moscow: Jazyki slavjanskix kul’tur.Search in Google Scholar

Bibok, Károly. 1998. A hív és a küld igék konceptuális szemantikai vizsgálata [A conceptual semantic investigation of Hungarian verbs hív ‘call’ and küld ‘send’]. Magyar Nyelv 94. 436–446.Search in Google Scholar

Bibok, Károly. 2004. Word meaning and lexical pragmatics. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 51. 265–308.10.1556/ALing.51.2004.3-4.3Search in Google Scholar

Bibok, Károly. 2007. Konceptual’no-semantičeskoe issledovanie russkogo glagola rezat’ [A conceptual-semantic investigation of the Russian verb rezat’ ‘cut’]. Studia Slavica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 52. 47–54.10.1556/SSlav.52.2007.1-2.8Search in Google Scholar

Bibok, Károly. 2009. О sootnošenii teoretičeskogo jazykoznanija i rusistiki [The interrelationship between theoretical linguistics and Russian linguistics]. Studia Slavica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 54. 1–19.Search in Google Scholar

Bibok, Károly. 2010. From syntactic alternations to lexical pragmatics. In Enikő Németh T. & Károly Bibok (eds.), The role of data at the semantics–pragmatics interface, 261–304. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783110240276.261Search in Google Scholar

Bibok, Károly. 2012. On conceptual differentiation: The case of the Hungarian and Russian verbs meaning ‘cut’. Slavica 41. Debrecen, 127–132.Search in Google Scholar

Bibok, Károly. 2014. Lexical semantics meets pragmatics. Argumentum 10. 221–231.Search in Google Scholar

Croft, William & D. Alan Cruse. 2004. Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511803864Search in Google Scholar

Engelberg, Stefan. 2011a. Frameworks of lexical decomposition of verbs. In Claudia Maienborn, Klaus von Heusinger & Paul Portner (eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning, vol. 1, 358–399. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Search in Google Scholar

Engelberg, Stefan. 2011b. Lexical decomposition: Foundational issues. In Claudia Maienborn, Klaus von Heusinger & Paul Portner (eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning, vol. 1, 124–144. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Search in Google Scholar

Geeraerts, Dirk. 1989. Introduction: Prospects and problems of prototype theory. Linguistics 27. 587–612.10.1515/ling.1989.27.4.587Search in Google Scholar

Gergely, György & Thomas G. Bever. 1986. Related intuitions and the mental representation of causative verbs in adults and children. Cognition 23. 211–277.10.1016/0010-0277(86)90035-1Search in Google Scholar

Goldberg, Adele. 1995. Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar

Goldberg, Adele E. 2006. Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199268511.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Iwata, Seizi. 2002. Does MANNER count or not? Manner-of-motion verbs revisited. Linguistics 40. 61–110.10.1515/ling.2002.008Search in Google Scholar

Iwata, Seizi. 2008. Locative alternation: A lexical-constructional approach. Amsterdam: Benjamins.10.1075/cal.6Search in Google Scholar

Jevgen’jeva, Anastasija P. (ed.-in-chief). 1981–1984. Slovar’ russkogo jazyka [A dictionary of the Russian language] vol. 1–4, 2nd edn, revised and supplemented. Moscow: Russkij jazyk.Search in Google Scholar

Kertész, András. 2014. The armchair in the laboratory: A note on the relationship between introspective thought experiments and real experiments in linguistics. Argumentum 10. 359–371.Search in Google Scholar

Kertész, András & Csilla Rákosi. 2014. The p-model of data and evidence in linguistics. In András Kertész & Csilla Rákosi (eds.) The evidential basis of linguistic argumentation, 15–48. Amsterdam: Benjamins.10.1075/slcs.153Search in Google Scholar

Kolaiti, Patricia & Deirdre Wilson. 2014. Corpus analysis and lexical pragmatics: An overview. International Review of Pragmatics 6. 211–239.10.1163/18773109-00602002Search in Google Scholar

Kuznecov, Sergej A. (comp. and ed.-in-chief). 1998. Bol’šoj tolkovyj slovar’ russkogo jazyka [A comprehensive dictionary of the Russian language]. Sankt-Petersburg: Norint.Search in Google Scholar

Lang, Ewald & Claudia Maienborn. 2011. Two-level semantics: Semantic form and conceptual structure. In Claudia Maienborn, Klaus von Heusinger & Paul Portner (eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning, vol. 1, 709–740. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Search in Google Scholar

Levin, Beth & Malka Rappaport Hovav. 1995. Unaccusativity: At the syntax–lexical semantics interface. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar

Levin, Beth & Malka Rappaport Hovav. 2011. Lexical conceptual structure. In Claudia Maienborn, Klaus von Heusinger & Paul Portner (eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning, vol. 1, 420–440. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Search in Google Scholar

Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, Barbara. 2007. Polysemy, prototypes, and radial categories. In Dirk Geeraerts & Hubert Cuyckens (eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics, 139–169. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Mel’čuk, Igor’ A. 1989. Semantic primitives from the viewpoint of the meaning–text linguistic theory. Quaderni di Semantica 10. 65–102.Search in Google Scholar

Németh T., Enikő 2010. How lexical-semantic factors influence the verbs’ occurrence with implicit direct object arguments in Hungarian. In Enikő Németh T. & Károly Bibok (eds.), The role of data at the semantics–pragmatics interface, 305–348. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783110240276.305Search in Google Scholar

Németh T., Enikő & Károly Bibok. 2010. Interaction between grammar and pragmatics: The case of implicit arguments, implicit predicates and co-composition in Hungarian. Journal of Pragmatics 42. 501–524.10.1016/j.pragma.2009.07.001Search in Google Scholar

Pustejovsky, James. 1995. The generative lexicon. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar

Putnam, Hilary. 1975. The meaning of ‘meaning’. In Hilary Putnam (eds.), Mind, language and reality: Philosophical papers, vol. 2, 215–271. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511625251.014Search in Google Scholar

Schwarze, Christoph. 1982. Stereotyp und lexikalische Bedeutung. Sonderforschungsbereich, 99 Linguistik, Univ. Konstanz.Search in Google Scholar

Sperber, Dan & Deirdre Wilson. 1995. Relevance: Communication and cognition, 2nd edn, Oxford: Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar

de Swart, Henriëtte. 2011. Mismatches and coercion. In Claudia Maienborn, Klaus von Heusinger & Paul Portner (eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning, vol. 1, 574–597. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Search in Google Scholar

Taylor, John R. 2011. Prototype theory. In Claudia Maienborn, Klaus von Heusinger & Paul Portner (eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning, vol. 1, 643–664. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Search in Google Scholar

Wilson, Deirdre & Dan Sperber. 2012. Meaning and relevance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139028370Search in Google Scholar